What's the betting on the election - can Bush win?

Great Debates
101

Keith, I’m truly sorry you feel that way.

Let’s do a thought experiment here, if you’re still reading this.

You’ve gotten to look inside a box, but you can’t tell us what’s there, except in the most vague and general terms.

OK, the rest of us are outside the box. But we can pick up the box, weigh it, rattle it around, and hold instruments next to it to detect any radiation coming from inside the box.

We still don’t know what’s in the box. But we know a great deal about what may or may not be in the box.

We have to square anything you tell us about what’s in the box with what we’ve been able to find out through other means. That process does qualify as ‘fighting ignorance’, regardless of what you have seen, or what you believe about trying to find the truth when one’s knowledge is incomplete.

In the case of Iraq and WMDs, you have had a look inside the box in ways that I can’t possibly duplicate. But a great deal of other seemingly reliable evidence is in the public domain. I can put weights on that evidence, based on the apparent reliability of the different sources, and reach tentative conclusions.

It’s hard to fit your testimony into that: what you’re saying isn’t very specific (what sorts of WMDs were there? what quantities? were they weaponized? and so forth) and I don’t know where you’re getting it from (satellite photos? eyewitness testimony?) so I don’t know what to make of it, and where to fit it in with everything else.

What I can do is ask the question, “If Iraqi WMDs were a near-term threat (i.e. this invasion couldn’t wait until, say, November of 2003 when things cooled off again), then what else has to be true?” and it either demands labs and production facilities ready to tool up quickly, or a significant quantity of already-weaponized bio/chem weapons that had to be hidden or destroyed at the last minute.

I have to believe we could have found traces of the former, and from news accounts of the Iraqi military’s performance in March and April, I don’t believe in their ability to thoroughly pull off the latter. And if they were moved to these Manhattan-sized munitions dumps, wouldn’t even 1960s-style spy satellites have been able to spot some evidence of it?

So I just don’t know where to fit your testimony in; it doesn’t fit with my understanding. You obviously can’t use the nuclear debate weapon of sharing stuff you shouldn’t. (And I don’t believe you have.) What I would expect of you, should you stay around, is to be willing to use conventional weapons, so to speak, to attempt to reshape our knowledge of what’s happened over there so that there’s room for your oracular pronouncements to at least be plausible, and consistent with what else we know.

102

Where can I place a bet on Bush losing? At those odds, it’s too tempting to pass up!

103

Makes sense to me. If he wins another term, what good is money?

104

No reason for you not to give me all your money if wins, then, is there?:slight_smile:

105

If you find out, let me know. A little action makes a contest a lot more interesting.

And I’m also giving 500-1 odds on Kucinich getting the nomination. Any takers?

106

Good idea, John-boy! To facilitate the massive transfer of funds in your direction, I’m going to need a lot of info - you know, account numbers, passwords, that sort of thing. Best move it along briskly, can’t wait for the last minute.

107

If Kucinich wins, I will eat a big chocolate cake shaped like my hat. It’s the least I can do.

And bluesman, thanks for your unique perpsective. It’s really interesting.

108

Are you serious about this?

Did you mean 500-1 against Kucinich getting the nod from the Dems?

If you are offering 500-1 that he does get nominated, I got some dead Presidents to talk to you about.

Regards,
Shodan

109

Yeah, frankly, I’ll lay a sawbuck on that, too.

110

Didn’t I phrase it right? I meant, of course, that he was a near impossibility to be nominated, barring a freak accident at a debate which he doesn’t attend. For every $1 you will pay me if anyone but Kucinich is nominated, I will pay you $500 if he IS.

Sometimes I wish I ran a casino. Ladies and gentlemen, the current odds board at the fabulous George Resort & Casino:
Dean 6:5
Kerry 5:2
Gephardt 3:2
Edwards 10:1 (it’s really bad for him when I can’t remember his name at all when making this list. Thanks, CNN.)
Lieberman 15:1
Clark 10:1
Kucinich 500:1
Sharpton 500:1
Moseley-Braun 1000:1

111

Bluesman

[Moderator Hat ON]

Bluesman, do NOT call your fellow posters “dumbass” outside the Pit, understood?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

112

I’m not sure why everyone thinks Bush is a shoo-in.

He lost the last popular election. He won the electoral vote by the skin of his teeth. Rather than taking this as a sign that he should govern from the middle he’s acted as though he had a landslide mandate. He’s made a number of decisions (environmental, budgetary, defense) that have left the opposition seething mad and alienated swing voters and even members of his own party.

I’ve read a number of letters to the editor over the last year from people saying “I voted for Bush last time and boy do I regret it.” (Or, “I voted for Nader last time and boy do I regret it.”) I haven’t read any saying “I voted for Gore last time, but hey, what do you know? Bush is doing a pretty good job!”

What am I missing here?

113

Hey George, do those odds work both ways? IOW, if I wanted to bet against Edwards, for example, could I bet $10 to win $1 if he loses? Or is there some vigorish in there? Or are you only taking bets for a given candidate?

114

Good point, Pochacco. I don’t know of any Gore voters who are considering Bush for 2004. Some such people may very well exist, but in my experience, they’re a considerable minority. I seem to run across plenty of Bush (or Nader) voters who are committed to getting us a new president next year. I hear very little talk about how similar the two major parties are anymore. When 2sense started asseting as much (on this thread, I think?) I realized just how rare that sentiment is anymore.

I take it as a good sign that my mother, who hasn’t liked a Democratic presidential nominee since Hubert Humphrey and generally finds voting Democratic distasteful, not only loathes George Bush but has become enamored of Howard Dean lately. Yes, she didn’t like Bush in 2000 but voted for him anyway. One woman does not an upswell make, but I get the feeling she’s indicative of a sentiment that will be reported copiously, in time—either before or after November 2.

The experts who say that the 2004 election is going to be another squeaker are probably right. That John Zogby is a pretty reliable soothsayer.

115

Your memory is faulty. The thread you are probably referring to is What are Democrats doing to contain Green Party spoiler candidates this time around?. If you read it you will note that my 2nd post begins with the direct statement that I do see a difference between the Democratic and the Republican Party. That’s hardly surprising considering I was a Dem until 2002. I didn’t see any need to bring it up there but in fact I voted for Al Gore.

116

Hell, I voted libertarian last time.

Won’t do it this time.

117

Pochacco said:

Okay, I’ll give you a whole bunch of reasons:

The first is structural. If Bush does only as well in 2004 as he did in 2000, he would get 7 more electoral votes because of demographic changes in the electorate. ‘Bush’ states gained electoral votes, and ‘Gore’ states lost them.

Second, Bush won last time, while Gore had all the advantages of being the incumbent who presided over a period of unprecedented growth, peace, and prosperity. This time, BUSH is the incumbent. Incumbency has huge advantages.

Third, the ‘battleground’ states are almost all states that Gore won last time. In other words, the states that Bush won are even more solidly Republican, while the states Gore won have been trending Republican. So the Democratic candidate has to claw back Republican gains just to stay even. All Bush has to do is maintain the status quo and he wins.

Fourth, money. Bush has a HUGE warchest already (110 million dollars), and it’s a year out from the election. And, Bush is running unopposed in his party, so he can save all his money for combating the Democratic challenger. The Democrat, on the other hand, will have used up most of his campaign funds just getting through the nomination, and will have to start fund raising again.

Fifth, lack of opposition. Presidents who do not face strong rivals from within their party usually win re-election. Not just for financial reasons, but nomination battles are very damaging. Whoever wins on the Democratic side is going to have a lot of mud thrown at him from within his own party, and will lose some of his potential voters and independents because of it. Plus, it gives Bush ammo.

Sixth, Sept. 11, 2001. A lot changed after that attack, and almost all the changes break towards the Republican’s strengths on defense and security. Bill Clinton was elected as an inexperienced southern Governor at a time when people felt secure and saw no major threats on the horizon. But when people are threatened, they move towards the Republicans, and towards the candidate with experience. When the Republican is the incumbent president, the Democrat has a huge challenge. During the cold war, Democrats only held the office for 12 years (not including Truman), and Republicans held office for 28 years.

Seventh, the economy. Bush’s dad lost the election in part because the economy was getting worse during the election season. This president will have an improving economy. When people like the direction of events, they typically don’t want to change leaders. If the economy is roaring along, Bush wins.

Eighth, the challengers. Frankly, they suck. The front-runner, Howard Dean, has huge liabilities - the biggest of which is his gaping mouth. He keeps saying stupid things that are going to bite him in the ass. His comment about wanting to appeal to “guys in pickups with confederate flags”, his comment yesterday that the U.S. is no safer now that Saddam is in jail (true or not, the timing of that statement was horrible, and a political pro should know that). He has made a number of these gaffes, and has pretty much been let off the hook on them. But when the 110 million dollar campaign machine of George Bush gets rolling, look out. Can you imagine how it’s going to play when Bush runs a commercial showing Saddam firing his shotgun, then cutting to shots of mass graves, then a picture of Saddam behind bars, then Howard Dean saying, “Capturing Saddam didn’t make us any safer!”? And maybe Joe Lieberman telling Tim Russert, “If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power today.”

I could go on. The deck is currently heavily stacked in favor of Bush. He’s got high personal popularity, high approval ratings (61% today - higher than Reagan or Clinton at the same point in their first term), an improving and already strong economy, and a couple of big feathers in his cap on the war on terror.

He can still lose. If Iraq takes a turn for the worse, and a major terrorist attack plummets the economy back into trouble, then Bush could be toast. But if you’re a betting person, you should put your money on Bush. 3-1? If the bookies are offering that, they believe the true odds are probably more like 4-1 in Bush’s favor. And that’s about right, I think.

118

Slight hijack.

Sam slightly misunderstands the subtelty of the bookie’s art. A bookie does not gamble. His customers gamble. A bookie has no interest, whatsoever, in the true odds of any situation. Customarily, a bookie charges for the bet itself, the “vig”. Sometimes, this charge is only applied to losing bets: bet $10 and lose, you owe $11.

So you see: the bookie’s ideal situation is one in which the amounts of money bet on the Vikings is precisely equal to the money wagered on the St. Catherines Middle School for Bitter Virgins. The bookie gets his, no matter what.

As to the OP, November is light years from now. There are any number of perfectly plausible scenarios, such as outlined by friend Sam, that would lead to a massive landslide by the least worthy candidate since Nixon.

Or, America might wake up, smell the coffee, and read the paper.

A quibble. A minor matter, but that’s the trouble with quibbles.

The “demographic shift” that Sam speaks of with innocent euphemism is mostly a product of the cunning mind of the Rep. Tom “the Hummer” DeLay (R, Undead). It is more the result of the grasping ruthlessness of the Forces of Darkness than any statistical “demographics”. They hold as an article of faith that the vast majority of Americans are in complete agreement with them, it is only that they are misled by lawyers and teachers (who succeeded cigar-puffing “labor bosses”).

Ths distortion in effect resulted in a plurality of voters for Gore. Which, of course, led to our Tighty Righty kin discovering a previously unnoticed devotion to the Electoral College. Think of it as an epiphany.

119

There is absolutely NOTHING you can teach me about bookies, elucidator. Bookies do like to balance their action, but only to a certain degree. If they find the public is betting heavily against what the bookie sees as the true odds, the bookie will leave the line out of balance, essentially betting his own money. This is the most profitable course of action, and prevents the bookie from being ‘middled’. The desire to balance the bets is proportional to the size of the bets compared to the bookie’s bankroll.

And while it’s true that some bookies simply charge a monetary ‘vig’ (the 11-10 you mentioned, or more or less depending on the variance inherent in the bet, and how accurate the bookie feels his line is), it’s also quite common to charge a ‘vig’ by not giving true odds. For example, the true odds for a 3-way even-money parlay are 8-1, but most bookies will only give you 6-1. The difference is the vig. In sports betting, sometimes it’s a financial charge (common in baseball), but other times the ‘vig’ will be set by only paying out if the other team wins by a certain number of points - those points being set higher by the bookie than the ‘true odds’ would suggest.

But I digress.

120

As for the demographic shift being the result of anyone’s ‘cunning’ - that’s not true unless you think the Republicans are cunning enough to trick people into moving into their states. You are thinking of gerrymandering, which both parties do, and which has nothing to do with electoral college votes.

What I’m talking about is a real popution shift between states due to the census of 2000. This has caused the number of representatives in some states to change. If Bush had won the same states in 2000, but with 2004’s electoral vote distribution, he would have won 278-260, instead of 273-267. That means even the loss of one close state like New Hampshire would still allow Bush to win. The same wouldn’t have been true in 2000. So the Democrats have a taller mountain to climb.